Alberta Politics Thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ernie

An appeal to authority is perfectly valid when the authority you are appealing to is in fact an authority. Unless you can point to why the group consensus among climate scientists (i.e. actual experts) is somehow speculative or that they aren't actually experts that can logically comment on the data and make conclusions from it an appeal to authority is logically valid.

An appeal to authority failure in an argument isn't simply Person 1 says Y is true, therefore Y is true and one can't simple accept that. There must be a reason that makes it quite unlikely that Person 1 is an expert on Y so that one logically should not take what they say as truth.

It's called facts. Science runs on them. The science is clear and while I may not know the intricacies of how they do the models or harvest the data, I know that when you have a massive group consensus around a subject in science where the scientific method has been used there is no need for me to truly doubt the over arcing conclusions or be concerned that I don't know the nitty gritty of how everything was determined.


Now one can't place the blame of a single event on something like global warming exclusively (overall trends is a different story), but my pet peeve is that people throw out "appeal to authority" as if one must never do it. That isn't true. That is exactly what one MUST do when there is an authority to appeal to. In this case a large group of very, very good scientists and experts.

Honestly, I didn't follow the entire argument/discussion, however, the appeal to authority response came based on a post about experts knowing what they are doing. They do know what they're doing. The appeal to authority in that case is perfectly valid.

So "a bunch of PhD's" is a valid group of very, very good scientists and experts?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I just doubt the accuracy of measuring the planets temperature past a certain point. When I see the temperature increases since the 1880's for example, how accurate were those readings? Are we talking about a guy using weather data every year to gauge an average? I know we aren't talking about anything involving what we consider to be modern science at that point though, so its questionable. So lets say that you have accurate data since the 60's, or about 50 years. That's 50 years out of how many thousands/millions? Its almost a snapshot.

I can understand this line of thinking if you look at temperatures standalone. What you're ignoring is the science that predicts warming not based on temperature trends but on models of how increasing CO2 would impact the heat balance of Earth. Rising temperature measurements simply support the validity of those predictions.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

So "a bunch of PhD's" is a valid group of very, very good scientists and experts?

Are you saying scientists don't know what they're talking about?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Are you saying scientists don't know what they're talking about?

No, I didn't say that.

But scientists often don't know what they are talking about. They aren't infallible, and the world is a complicated place.

[PsYcNeT]

I mean I can get behind the whole "PhD doesn't mean 'listen to me'" idea, Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon FFS. That said, actual environmental scientists who have peer support typically should be listened to, as they are the literal experts.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

You have to contact Alberta first call.

Badum-tiss.

[peter12]

Well, this discussion has become very abstract.

[troutman]

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/reso...ical-fallacies

Argument from authority

The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see above.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

[peter12]

As a side-note, I give true credit to troutman for actually embodying a lot of the liberal humanist values that he expresses on this board. There is probably not a more tolerant, even-handed poster on the site.

[AltaGuy]

One of Canada's leading forest fire researchers (yeah, I'm sure he's Mr. PhD in something) basically put it as: we know that increasing global temperatures will cause more forest fires, but say you go from three hundred forest fires to five hundred - there is no scientific way to determine which forest fires were caused by global warming. So this argument about FM becomes moot.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

One of Canada's leading forest fire researchers (yeah, I'm sure he's Mr. PhD in something) basically put it as: we know that increasing global temperatures will cause more forest fires, but say you go from three hundred forest fires to five hundred - there is no scientific way to determine which forest fires were caused by global warming. So this argument about FM becomes moot.

Isn't it a good thing then that we have conflicting opinions among experts? It causes more dialogue and research.

That said, the argument only becomes moot if you choose that as the only word you're willing to take.

The initial article was scientific speculation that the FMM fires may have been caused in part due to climate change.

Also, link?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Isn't it a good thing then that we have conflicting opinions among experts? It causes more dialogue and research.

That said, the argument only becomes moot if you choose that as the only word you're willing to take.

The initial article was scientific speculation that the FMM fires may have been caused in part due to climate change.

Also, link?

What happens when all the conflicting opinions have peer review?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, this discussion has become very abstract.

abstraction seems to follow you around on this board Peter

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Isn't it a good thing then that we have conflicting opinions among experts? It causes more dialogue and research.

That said, the argument only becomes moot if you choose that as the only word you're willing to take.

The initial article was scientific speculation that the FMM fires may have been caused in part due to climate change.

Also, link?

Can we not just hold the opinion that Climate Change is a real issue and needs to be dealt with without blaming every extreme weather event on climate change?

Why do those have to be competing values?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by edslunch

abstraction seems to follow you around on this board Peter

Give me a break, dude. You have turned this into an ideological, dogma-filled, invective-filled sermon. You have also made sure to use all of scientism's buzz-words currently in vogue.

Yes, climate change is a thing. Obviously. It is also clear that no one knows exactly what is going to do, and it is obviously more political than rationally objective to term every change in weather patterns or every emerging natural phenomenon as due to climate change.

Why is this even an argument?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

What happens when all the conflicting opinions have peer review?

Then that would be a helluva thing. Typically, the peer review and confirmed research slants 70%+ in one direction or the other. I have never seen a 50/50 split in my lifetime.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Then that would be a helluva thing. Typically, the peer review and confirmed research slants 70%+ in one direction or the other. I have never seen a 50/50 split in my lifetime.

I'm coming from the social sciences where peer review has proven to be less and less reliable.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm coming from the social sciences where peer review has proven to be less and less reliable.

That's the social sciences in a nutshell however.

Climate change, as socially and politically as it has been coloured, is still a hard science based around observable data and computer modelling.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Give me a break, dude. You have turned this into an ideological, dogma-filled, invective-filled sermon. You have also made sure to use all of scientism's buzz-words currently in vogue.

Yes, climate change is a thing. Obviously. It is also clear that no one knows exactly what is going to do, and it is obviously more political than rationally objective to term every change in weather patterns or every emerging natural phenomenon as due to climate change.

Why is this even an argument?

Um, here is the sum total of my recent posts on this thread:

I can understand this line of thinking if you look at temperatures standalone. What you're ignoring is the science that predicts warming not based on temperature trends but on models of how increasing CO2 would impact the heat balance of Earth. Rising temperature measurements simply support the validity of those predictions.

Are you saying scientists don't know what they're talking about?

abstraction seems to follow you around on this board Peter

I think you're confusing me with someone else?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Um, here is the sum total of my recent posts on this thread:


I think you're confusing me with someone else?

Haha, yes I am. My apologies.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's the social sciences in a nutshell however.

Climate change, as socially and politically as it has been coloured, is still a hard science based around observable data and computer modelling.

It instantly becomes controversial when climate science is used to make policy recommendations.